Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Goodie View Post
    I have always questioned Peter's so-called knowledge of the Christ, at least according to our understanding of what Christ usually means. I say this because in the very next verses, Peter attempts to stop Jesus from fulfilling his mission as the Christ! How could Peter say Jesus was the Christ and rebuke the Lord Jesus for being the Christ?! Should we be surprised that the Lord called Peter an adversary (satan) because of what Peter was trying to do...

    Is it not also amazing that at the first, Peter is attributed to "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee" but after Jesus rebukes him, Peter is attributed "for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." [Note: my understanding of "flesh and blood" is not the same as "human being;" it is old covenant related.]

    Matthew 16:21-23 - From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
    22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
    23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


    Peter's understanding of Christ was different than our understanding of Christ.
    I had recognized this response earlier and had intended to acknowledge it and reply with comment.

    It's a response to my affirmation of Peters acknowledgement of the deity of Jesus.
    John 6:29
    Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

    Matt 16:16
    And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the LIVING God.
    I actually think that your observation of Peter's behavior speaks positively about the 'salvation'/relational process and affirms that the belief in Christ as the son of living God is the beginning foundation and primary requisite for entrance to the kingdom. All who believe and are baptized [meaning either recieve the Spirit or contract (expressed in baptism) to leave the mosaic covenant] shall be saved. John again affirmed this belief in Christ as the foundational commandment of God in first 1 john 3 [below]

    Also:
    Paul affirmed that while we were yet sinners God paid the ransom. He talks of this in the context of justification [being declared righteous] by faith.

    Many have made the analogy that Jacob, after his encounter with the angel [possibly Jesus] began a gradual change, but was of questionable, even revokable character beforehand and somewhat afterwards. Deut 32 mention the process of God watching over Him and then says that Jacob, not mosaic conditional covenant Israel, is the lot of God's inheiritance. [BUT (a contrast against Jacob) Jeshurun (referring to negative conditional national covenant Israel] waxed fat] Jacob is given the name meaning 'son of God' at the moment of his encounter not after he makes changes to his life.

    In John 1:12 it's declared that those who recieved him, he gave the right to become 'sons of God' EVEN to those who believed on his name... [who beleived on the Creator/living God's character]

    One of the most impacting moments in Peters life would have been Christs appearance to him after the resurrection. After Peter had denied knowing him and the cock crowed; Peter had his understanding and experience greatly altered via Jesus's totally uncritical, non admonoshing meeting. Peter and the other disciples coming to knowledge of God and thus their subsequent change was a gradual one. Peter came to "experientially" know God through Christ over time as John 17:3 affirms. Remember how Peter wrongly blurted out that Jesus did pay the mosaic temple administration tax?

    John affirms what Jesus spoke about believing on Him as the commandment of God. John 6:29
    Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
    1 John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

    23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another,, as he gave us commandment.

    24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (compare John 14-17)
    This is the commandment who's authority free's from the mosaic law and from the oppression of conditional means of appeasement, acceptance and seeking blessing from the maker of life.

    It''s like Capn Dan (in Forest Gump) jumping off the ship and then just simply floating in the sunshine recieving and basking in the warm of His unconditional acceptance. There was a change between the night before of his cursing and railing against God and thanking Gump [unconditionally] for saving it.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 03-23-2012 at 02:50 PM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

  2. #22

    Cris Putnam


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Thanks Roberto for the links. The same arguments continue on this forum. I agree with those who say that there is a lot of unfilled prophecy by the time of AD70 and Jesus could not have returned by then.

    I left a comment on the website, so do not have to repeat what I wrote there. God's dealing with man is upon this earth and this is where God's kingdom will be established. A kingdom needs a king and people and eternal life is to be given to people to live on the earth for ever. This is the ultimate goal of God that His Glory shall fill the whole earth and we have not seen that happen and is a long time off and needs Jesus to return in order to restore the earth and eventually hand back the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. That will be when Gods glory fills the whole earth.


    David

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Thanks for the links. They show how desperate and unbiblical people must become in order to oppose Preterism. The first article begins with the absurd and utterly unfounded assertion that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 "are clearly speaking to distinct events and are even set in different locations." I say "absurd" because the two versions of the Olivet Discourse follow exactly the same pattern from beginning to end and are word-for-word identical on many points. It is simply impossible to be logically consistent and assert that they are talking about different events. Futurists have only two options - 1) Assert that Matthew and Luke are talking about different events, or 2) assert that they are both yet future. Neither of the options is possible, therefore Futurism is self-evidently false. No Futurist has ever successfully defended their assertions in discourse with me. The problem is that the three versions of the Olivet Discourse are a UNITY that is LOCKED DOWN in the first century through many incontrovertible facts, such as the fact that the whole discourse was predicated on the destruction of the first century Temple (which happened in 70 AD) and Christ explicitly said that all the events would happen during the lifetime of his first century audience which he called "this generation." If you want to see how weak the Futurist arguments really are, just read this post.

    The first article also displayed a profound ignorance of how to interpret the Bible. I quote:
    Today’s reason is Jesus’ description of a great tribulation period, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.” (Mt 24:21) Because even partial preterists place the abomination of desolation mentioned just above this passage (Mt 24:15) in the first century, they must put this time back then as well. But was the Jerusalem war of AD 70 the worst tribulation in history? Worse than the two World Wars? Worse than the holocaust?
    The ignorance displayed here is stunning. Christ's statement is obviously hyperbole. This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Bible. Is the Tribulation supposed to be worse than the flood of Noah where all but eight died? If Putnam were consistent with his hyper-literalism his interpretations would be immediately self-contradictory because Ezekiel also said God would never again send destruction like that caused by the Babylonian's in the 6th century BC:
    Ezekiel 5:7 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Because you have multiplied disobedience more than the nations that are all around you, have not walked in My statutes nor kept My judgments, nor even done according to the judgments of the nations that are all around you' -- 8 "therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 'And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations. 10 'Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments among you, and all of you who remain I will scatter to all the winds. 11 'Therefore, as I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will also diminish you; My eye will not spare, nor will I have any pity. 12 'One-third of you shall die of the pestilence, and be consumed with famine in your midst; and one-third shall fall by the sword all around you; and I will scatter another third to all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them.
    Putnam's error is explained in more detail here. It is also important to note that the fulfillment of Christ's words in 70 AD is confirmed by the first century historian Josephus in his Preface to the Wars of the Jews:
    the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations;
    Therefore, it is obvious to anyone with understanding that Jesus was not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem as LITERALLY the worst thing that ever happened in history.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,540
    No Futurist has ever successfully defended their assertions in discourse with me.
    All I want to do is to alert anyone new to this forum to go to the links to which Richard is responding and make up your own mind. There are people on this forum who have defended their futurist understanding of the passages under consideration and have concluded in the light of all prophecy in the Bible that there is much that was not fulfilled by the time of AD70 and there is prophecy that is obviously future and remain unfulfilled to this present day, so there are things to watch out for.

    No-one has been able to convince Richard to change his opinion and that is the truth of the situation. This can mean that Richard's opinion is incorrect and others might be right. For those who want to go to other posts on this forum, here are some links to begin with. The threads are long so take your time to go through them.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...of-Eschatology

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2128

    May God bless us all for our diligent studies.

    David

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    There are people on this forum who have defended their futurist understanding of the passages under consideration and have concluded in the light of all prophecy in the Bible that there is much that was not fulfilled by the time of AD70 and there is prophecy that is obviously future and remain unfulfilled to this present day, so there are things to watch out for.

    No-one has been able to convince Richard to change his opinion and that is the truth of the situation. This can mean that Richard's opinion is incorrect and others might be right. For those who want to go to other posts on this forum, here are some links to begin with. The threads are long so take your time to go through them.
    David
    There are also people on this forum who, after consideration of the futurist defenses and much consideration of all passages of prophecy, have affirmed that the futurists interpretaions and projections remain wrong and that the kingdom remains established in the hearts of believers in Christ.

    Thus, It can also mean that the futurists are wrong, and that Richard is right.

    Remember your algebra class and how on occassion almost everyone in the class would have the same or similar answer except one or two individuals. The minority is sometimes right and has the truth.!!

    It is a hard truth to swallow if the 'church' has taught some of the wrong doctrines since Ireneous and since Scofield and thus have forsaken Glorifying the Living God through his fulfillment of prophecy.
    I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." ...
    The futurists often disreguards the Historical [and sometimes literary] part of Historico-grammatical-Literary methods. And when confronted with 'gramatical' definitions of words as used in the context of the time, they ignore that evidence also if it does not fit within their ideologies and hatred of God's life. [See Acts 7]

    They fail to pursue inductive study and original audience relevance and context as well as failing to note the type or intentions of the literature as presented. They are 'judaizers' and mutilators of the text's.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 09-05-2012 at 11:09 AM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,312
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    All I want to do is to alert anyone new to this forum to go to the links to which Richard is responding and make up your own mind. There are people on this forum who have defended their futurist understanding of the passages under consideration and have concluded in the light of all prophecy in the Bible that there is much that was not fulfilled by the time of AD70 and there is prophecy that is obviously future and remain unfulfilled to this present day, so there are things to watch out for.

    No-one has been able to convince Richard to change his opinion and that is the truth of the situation. This can mean that Richard's opinion is incorrect and others might be right. For those who want to go to other posts on this forum, here are some links to begin with. The threads are long so take your time to go through them.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...of-Eschatology

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2128

    May God bless us all for our diligent studies.

    David
    Hey there David,

    It would be much more interesting, and fruitful, if you simply stated a point where any Futurist has ever shown me to be in error on a fundamental point concerning eschatology. Merely posting links to long threads doesn't help anyone because they don't know what to look for.

    So here's my friendly little challenge to you. Find any post anywhere on this forum where my argument for Preterism was clearly defeated by a Futurist. I think that should be very interesting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    It would be much more interesting, and fruitful, if you simply stated a point where any Futurist has ever shown me to be in error on a fundamental point concerning eschatology. Merely posting links to long threads doesn't help anyone because they don't know what to look for.

    So here's my friendly little challenge to you. Find any post anywhere on this forum where my argument for Preterism was clearly defeated by a Futurist. I think that should be very interesting!

    Richard

    Hello Richard
    I think it was Twospirits who gave a robust reply against Preterism. Whatever answer anyone gives, you simply say they have failed to answer your question, so I expect the search as you suggest to be fruitless.

    One point that Bible Scholars (dare I say Christians) fail to recognize is the completion of Christ's work in handing back the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. This has to be a future work because God's kingdom on earth has not been restored to date, nor has the promise of God that His Glory shall fill the whole earth. Of course we have no firm date to go on, but it necessitates the return of Christ to the earth to set up God's kingdom.

    The finality of Christ's work is given in 1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

    There has to be a future time when the last enemy destroyed is death, so there more prophecy remaining to be fulfilled.

    All the best,

    David

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,540
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    There are also people on this forum who, after consideration of the futurist defenses and much consideration of all passages of prophecy, have affirmed that the futurists interpretaions and projections remain wrong and that the kingdom remains established in the hearts of believers in Christ.

    Thus, It can also mean that the futurists are wrong, and that Richard is right.

    Remember your algebra class and how on occassion almost everyone in the class would have the same or similar answer except one or two individuals. The minority is sometimes right and has the truth.!!

    It is a hard truth to swallow if the 'church' has taught some of the wrong doctrines since Ireneous and since Scofield and thus have forsaken Glorifying the Living God through his fulfillment of prophecy.

    The futurists often disreguards the Historical [and sometimes literary] part of Historico-grammatical-Literary methods. And when confronted with 'gramatical' definitions of words as used in the context of the time, they ignore that evidence also if it does not fit within their ideologies and hatred of God's life. [See Acts 7]

    They fail to pursue inductive study and original audience relevance and context as well as failing to note the type or intentions of the literature as presented. They are 'judaizers' and mutilators of the text's.
    Thank you for your reply. The main difference between what you say and what futurists believe is that Christ must return to the earth to set up God's kingdom. I consider Acts 1 in it says; this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


    As Richard likes to say the Bible clearly states, I do not think we can get a much clearer statement to say that Christ's return will be no different to as he went. There is much to do with setting up God's kingdom on earth and that is why there are prophecies clearly indicating the signs of the times before Christ returns.

    I think you are correct when you say; "The minority is sometimes right and has the truth.!!" That is what I have been saying to Richard in that the masses do not have the correct understanding, It is highly likely that a minority of people will have the truth. This alone should keep us on our toes so as not to become complacent with our beliefs.

    God bless.

    David

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,312
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    I think it was Twospirits who gave a robust reply against Preterism. Whatever answer anyone gives, you simply say they have failed to answer your question, so I expect the search as you suggest to be fruitless.
    Good morning David,

    I find your answer to be the height of irony. I never "simply say" folks have failed to answer my questions. On the contrary, I always state the reason they failed and I prove my case with logic and facts. Do you do that? Nope. On the contrary, you blatantly assert, without any proof whatsoever, that I "simply say that they have failed." Now look at the irony of your assertion. You are doing, right here right now in your post, the very thing you accused me of!

    Here's how it works David. If you think that Twospirits gave a "robust reply" then you need to show how I failed to refute him (which I did utterly and totally). His position was radically incoherent and contrary to both reason and Scripture, and I proved it without any room for doubt. If you disagree, the present the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    One point that Bible Scholars (dare I say Christians) fail to recognize is the completion of Christ's work in handing back the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. This has to be a future work because God's kingdom on earth has not been restored to date, nor has the promise of God that His Glory shall fill the whole earth. Of course we have no firm date to go on, but it necessitates the return of Christ to the earth to set up God's kingdom.

    The finality of Christ's work is given in 1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

    There has to be a future time when the last enemy destroyed is death, so there more prophecy remaining to be fulfilled.

    All the best,

    David
    That's your interpretation. There is not a single verse in the Bible that says there will be a future kingdom on earth. Your error is you reject the verses that plainly stated the kingdom is spiritual, not physical. If we take the Bible seriously, then we must agree that the New Jerusalem is symbolic of the Church, not some future earthly kingdom.
    Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,

    The City of God = the heavenly Jerusalem = the Church.

    How is it you don't see this?

    ETA: The problem is that the Bible is logically incoherent on this point. Therefore, if you assume that the Bible is logically coherent, you are forced to explain away the contradictions. This forces you to "reinterpret" either the verses that imply a future kingdom or the verses that imply the kingdom is the church. The problem with your choice is that if you have to explain away a lot more verses than the Preterist. That's why I say that Preterism is far from perfect, but is still the best fit to the Biblical data. If the Bible is logically coherent, then Preterism is true. But I don't believe the Bible is logically coherent, and that's why the argument has continued for two thousand years without resolution.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •